HomeMy Public PortalAboutPB Minutes 2005-12-13 ORLEANS PLANNING BOARD
December 13, 2005 —Minutes
A meeting of the Orleans Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Room A, Orleans
Town Hall. Present: Chairman: Sims McGrath; Vice-Chairman: John Fallender; Clerk: Seth
Wilkinson;Nate Pulling; Kenneth McKusick; Associates: Paul O'Connor; Town Planners: George
Meservey and John Jannell. Also Present: Board of Selectmen Liaison: Jon Fuller; and Finance
Committee Liaison: Cindy Suonpera. Absent: Gary Guzzeau.
2006 ZONING AMENDMENTS
Meservey stated there are six potential Zoning Bylaw amendments for consideration by the Planning
Board and a public hearing will be set for January 10, 2006 to hear applicable zoning amendments
forwarded for consideration to the Board of Selectmen from the Planning Board. Articles need to be in
final form and to the Board of Selectmen by February 17, 2006. Three of the amendments are a result of
Town Counsel recommendations.
CHAPTER 164-13: SCHEDULE OF USE REGULATIONS
Meservey informed the Planning Board that Town Counsel has recommended that the Table of Use
Requirements in the Orleans Zoning Bylaws should not contain any blank cells as this can cause
confusion regarding allowed uses in each district. Meservey noted that there are no changes proposed in
the types of uses; but the gaps have been filled in on the table for all of the districts. McGrath suggested
conducting further research on the Table of Use Requirements in order to clarify allowed uses in each
district and eliminate redundancies. The Planning Board discussed the layout of the Table of Use
Regulations and whether grouping the items or alphabetizing them would make it easier to find specific
items, and the board's consensus was to have the table alphabetized with categories as necessary. Fuller
agreed that the current Table of Use regulations is difficult to use and would be better with the same main
categories and then alphabetization and groupings under those categories. McKusick noted that for
clarity at town meeting it should be stated that this is not a change in use; it is simply a change in the
format for clarification purposes only.
Summary of recommended changes: The Planning Board agreed that the Table of Use Regulations
should be broken down in the same main categories and then alphabetized and/or grouped to make it
easier to look up information for each district.
ACTION: A consensus of the Planning Board was to move forward with this article and schedule a
public hearing on January 10, 2006.
CHAPTER 164-34: PARKING REGULATIONS
Meservey stated that the Building Inspector has asked for clarity as to what is known as the "six space
waiver" for parking spaces. Currently, the regulations state that if you want to put an addition on a
building that requires fewer than six parking spaces with no space to provide those parking spaces,you do
not have to provide them at all. The Building Inspector has requested that language be added that this
can only be done if the building structure or use of the land is currently in compliance. This will avoid
having people continuously adding additions onto buildings without providing adequate parking.
Planning Board Minutes December 13„ 2005 Page 1
Meservey stated that this codifies the intention of the bylaw that this was a"one time waiver"if you want
to put a small addition onto your business and you don't comply with parking. McGrath noted that
incremental small additions onto buildings would cause the business owner means that every other time
an addition is added to that building, the parking on that property would have to come into compliance or
parking must provided nearby. Meservey agreed that if the business owner provides adequate parking, he
could come in for another waiver in the future. McGrath clarified that this does not eliminate the waiver,
but a property(not by owner)would have to come into compliance in order to take advantage of the
waiver. McGrath noted that commercial property requirements for the provision of parking are overseen
by the Site Plan Review Committee. Meservey stated that if a property owner needs a Special Permit for
shared parking, the Town requires a formal agreement be signed.
ACTION: The consensus of the Planning Board was to move forward with this article and schedule a
public hearing on January 10, 2006.
CHAPTER 164-33: SITE PLAN REVIEW
Meservey stated this proposed amendment change originated from the Orleans Comprehensive Plan
regarding parking interconnections, which should be encouraged on commercial sites. This amendment
will allow for current and future parking needs for commercial sites, current parking spaces can be altered
to provide interconnections in the future. Wilkinson noted that caution must be exercised so that
interconnections won't be misused as a cut-through to avoid traffic jams.
ACTION: A consensus of the Planning Board was to move forward with this article and schedule a
public hearing on January 10, 2006.
CHAPTER 164-33.1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Meservey noted that the Planning Board met with the Architectural Review Committee and they were
amenable to more rigid standards in town which would allow them to deal more effectively with
applicants. This proposal would reword and clarify the design criteria used by the Architectural Review
Committee. The Planning Board discussed handicapped ramp access and how the bylaws deal with them.
The Architectural Review Committee chairman has agreed to present the proposed bylaw changes to her
committee for review and input. Meservey stated that the book, "Designing the Future to Honor the Past"
prepared by the Cape Cod Commission and the Newtonville Historic District guidelines were used for
reference. McKusick expressed concerns regarding the deletion of the passage on maintaining historic
features. Wilkinson suggested the inclusion of a list of building materials that would not be acceptable in
Orleans.
ACTION: A consensus of the Planning Board was to move forward with this article and schedule a
public hearing on January 10, 2006.
CHAPTER 164-4 DEFINITIONS
The Planning Board discussed the two definitions proposed for the Zoning Bylaws for"Interconnection"
and"Change of use" as proposed by Town Counsel.
Planning Board Minutes December 13„ 2005 Page 2
ACTION: A consensus of the Planning Board was to move forward with this article and schedule a
public hearing on January 10, 2006.
CHAPTER 164-3 APPLICABILITY
Meservey stated that Town Counsel has written a clearer version of this section of the Zoning Bylaws for
clarity of what should be allowed for changes and non-conformities.
Residential
Meservey stated that a non-conforming residence may be altered or extended provided that it does not
increase the non-conforming nature of such structure. The proposed project can not encroach on any of
the front, side and height setbacks. If a modification to a non-conforming single or two-family residence
does increase the set structures non-conforming nature, such modification is allowed on a Special Permit
of the Zoning Board of Appeals if they find that it is not substantially more detrimental. This allows for a
Special Permit even if the non-conforming nature is changed. This is the only substantive change in the
way we look at these projects. Currently to increase the structure's non-conforming nature (i.e. going
further into the side setbacks) the applicant would have to get a variance, which is difficult to obtain
(must be a hardship case, unique to the lot in question and not generally applicable to the zoning district).
A Special Permit is more easily obtained and give the Zoning Board of Appeals more latitude.
Meservey noted that where a modification to a nonconforming single-family residence would 1)result in
the creation of a new or additional dimensional non-conformity, or 2) encroach on a side setback area or
height greater than the existing non-conformity then the board is required to find that that modification
increases the non-conforming nature of the structure and is substantially more detrimental and would
require a variance.
Commercial
Meservey stated that alteration, structural change or extension of non-conforming structures other than
single and two-family structures can be changed with a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals
if the board finds that such modification is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Where modification to a non-conforming structure other than single-family(two residence)would 1)
result in the creation of a new or additional dimensional non-conformity, where none presently exists; or
2)intensify an existing dimensional non-conformity, the Zoning Board of Appeals is required to that the
modification is substantially more detrimental and a variance is required.
Meservey agreed to work with town counsel to come up with clear definitions of these items if the
Planning Board decides to move forward with this proposal.
ACTION: A consensus of the Planning Board was to move forward with this article and schedule a
public hearing on January 10, 2006.
MOTION: On a motion by Seth Wilkinson, seconded by Nate Pulling, the Board voted to forward
the six proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments to the Board of Selectmen to be returned to the Planning
Board and a public hearing be scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on January 10, 2006.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
Planning Board Minutes December 13„ 2005 Page 3
VILLAGE CENTER STUDY—ON-SITE PARKING ANALYSIS/CONSTRAINTS
Jannell explained the changes made to an updated version of the 2001 Parking Analysis done by the
Planning Department. Updates include an analysis of how parcels are currently being utilized and what
they have provided for on-site parking. Jannell noted that extensive parcel by parcel research shows that
the Village Center District as a whole has a surplus of over 450 parking spaces, even though individual
businesses may seem to have a deficit of parking spaces. Jannell noted that many businesses in town
share parking spaces which seems to work out well, some even have formal agreements. Jannell stated
that there are many public parking spaces provided by the town. Jannell noted that the Town's existing
regulations already have some flexibility regarding required parking.
Off-Site Parking Allowances - Jannell noted that the Zoning Bylaws allows for shared parking if
it is within a 500 foot distance of the development proposal. There is a provision for"payment in
lieu of on-site parking" originally set at$500.00 annually which was tied to the CPI and now
costs $905.00 per space annually.
Shared Parking—Jannell stated that shared parking is allowed under Zoning Board of Appeals
determination which is a two-year time limit.
On-Street Parking—Jannell stated this is a community benefit. Businesses are not allowed to
use on-street parking as part of their parking calculations.
Jannell noted that parking regulations in town are too restricting with height restrictions a close second.
There have been instances in town where previously shared parking caused problems down the road with
growth in business. It is important to provide protection with shared parking to avoid conflicts in the
future.
Options to provide parking flexibility:
"Six space"parking rule.
Reduction in"lieu of parking" cost.
Raise the distance for shared parking.
Provide parking credits.
Wilkinson agreed that relaxing the parking restrictions to encourage walking sounds like a good idea, but
cautioned that handicapped parking spaces need to be provided near businesses. McGrath noted that
businesses need to be analyzed individually to determine their parking needs, and whether those needs
have changed(i.e. banks no longer have the flow of customers they used to have before the advent of
computer banking). McGrath noted that parking is a greater constraint than septic requirements in the
downtown area. McGrath noted that parking and wastewater issues will be a major part of the Village
Center Master Plan. Jannell stated that in some cases the town is requiring more parking spaces than a
business is utilizing.
VILLAGE CENTER STUDY—BUILDING CODE CONSTRAINTS
Jannell stated he and the Building Commissioner had a discussion regarding building constraints in the
use of older buildings downtown with the addition of second floor residential dwellings over commercial
buildings. Jannell noted that there are code issues that will come up with mixed use developments and
reusing old buildings downtown. The Architectural Access Board is a State agency that is charged with
providing accessible public buildings with handicapped access. If a building has a second floor for public
Planning Board Minutes December 13„ 2005 Page 4
use, it must be handicapped accessible. In mixed use development, fire walls and fire separation must be
provided. All buildings must provide two means of egress. Upgrading of older building means the entire
building must be brought up to code. McGrath noted that there are waivers if a building falls under
certain thresholds in the Architectural Access Board.
OLD BUSINESS
Songbird Circle - Ralph Boas — Request to amend form of surety
Meservey noted that Ralph Boas has requested the opportunity to provide a passbook savings account in
order to sell his house immediately, and the passbook savings should cover all of the parts of the
subdivision. Meservey noted that the contractor estimates including road construction, water main,
utilities, and septic system replacement for his existing home are valid. There are items from the Plan,
Road Profile and Approval Conditions that have not be adequately addressed including:protection of the
specimen (Linden) tree (grubbing of the road was done without any permanent fence, consultation with
the Tree Warden, or an on-site arborist) as required by the Planning Board. Meservey recommended that
the Planning Board should let the conditions stand as previously required and not release anything and
due to root damage to the Linden Tree (since there has been no protection of the tree), the Tree Warden
recommends that$10,000 beset aside as the value of that tree. Meservey noted that$128,500 should be
converted to passbook savings, held jointly with the Town of Orleans, adequate to cover the remaining
necessary expenses to complete this project, to be given back to the applicant when all of the work is
completed.
MOTION: On a motion by Kenneth McKusick, seconded by Seth Wilkinson, the Board voted to
approve the change in surety for Ralph Boas for the subdivision named"Namskaket Chase" on a newly
developed road called Songbird Circle, from a Restrictive Covenant to a joint passbook savings account
in the amount of One hundred Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($128,500.00), all required
improvements to be completed by December 13, 2007, subject to the Tree Warden's assurance that all of
the tree protection mechanisms are in place to protect the Linden Tree.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
ACTION: The Planning Board asked for a report from the Tree Warden regarding the Linden Tree's
status at the January 10, 2006 meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Plannin_g Board Recommendations for Comprehensive Plan— FY`07
The Planning Board discussed with Jon Fuller their priorities of the Village Center Master Plan(in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan) and affordable housing.
Letter from W. M. de Beuret re_gardin_g a name change for a portion of Namequoit Road
Meservey noted that a letter was received by from Mrs. W. M. de Beuret(from Kingsbury Lane)
regarding renaming a portion of Namequoit Road which would require the renumbering of 14 houses on
this section of road. Meservey is working with the Fire Department regarding this request and whether it
Planning Board Minutes December 13„ 2005 Page 5
presents a public safety issue. McKusick noted that this request would need to come from the residents
on the affected road and/or the Fire Department in order for serious consideration of renaming a road.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 2005
MOTION: On a motion by John Fallender, seconded by Kenneth McKusick, the Board voted to
approve the minutes of November 8, 2005.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 28, 2005
MOTION: On a motion by Kenneth McKusick, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to
approve the minutes of November 28, 2005.
VOTE: 4-0-1 The vote passed by a majority. (Nate Pulling abstained).
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: On a motion by Nate Pulling, seconded by John Fallender, the Board voted to adjourn
at 9:30 p.m.
VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote was unanimous.
SIGNED: DATE:
(Clerk: Seth Wilkinson)
Planning Board Minutes December 13„ 2005 Page 6